[South Bulletin 72 Article]

The South Centre Conference in Geneva held a session on Sustainable Development issues. This article focuses on two presentations on the UN’s post-2015 Development Agenda and on the post-Rio+20 Summit process.

By Bhumika Muchhala

The South Centre held a conference in Geneva on 31 January – 1 February, which stressed the importance of addressing national development strategies and social development policies in the United Nation’s Post-2015 development framework and in the follow-up to the Rio+20 Summit held in June 2012.

The conference addressed important issues in the global economy and in multilateral negotiations and cooperation, including the imperative of South-South cooperation, the impact of free trade agreements and investment agreements on development and policy space in developing countries and the current economic problems, policies and prospects across Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Deepak Nayyar, Professor of Economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, India and Vice Chairman of the South Centre Board, addressed the UN’s Post-2015 development framework.

The Post-2015 development framework will establish the framework for development priorities in the UN and beyond starting in 2015. Since the year 2000, the global development framework has been largely characterized by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  

The ongoing development of the Post-2015 agenda is taking place in the UN system through several processes, including national consultations and a High-Level Panel chaired by the heads of state of the UK, Indonesia and Liberia. Several UN agencies have also been carrying out thematic consultations on a range of topics such as inequality, governance, employment and food and hunger.

Nayyar said that much of the discussion on the Post-2015 development framework is concentrated on the multilateral system, in which there is a proactive engagement on the part of industrial countries. He noted that nothing is more ironic than the fact that UK Prime Minister David Cameron leads the High-Level Panel. Thus far, developing countries of the South are at best reactive and at worst marginal to this process. A repeat scenario of the past, where the MDGs were drafted by a small group of diplomats in New York and then presented to member states in the General Assembly, must be avoided.

Nayyar noted that the MDGs, for better or worse, need to be considered as a starting point. However, the future cannot and should not be a prisoner of the past, he stressed. The international community needs to look at what can be learned from the MDG experience. Several key questions arise. First, is the 2015 juncture the same or significantly different than 2000? Second, what should be done by developing countries in the national context? And third, what can be done to reshape the international context so that it is more conducive to development?

The various reasons why the MDGs, much like the Human Development Index, caught the popular imagination are obvious. The MDGs were simple, with quantitative targets and objectives that are easy to comprehend. The good intentions of the MDGs are hard to disagree with. However, the accountability of the international community and national governments has been a limited endeavour. This is partly due to the reality that the constituencies for poor people simply didn’t have voice or the power of sanction. 

As it turned out, the MDGs did not serve the larger strategic purpose of changing the discourse on development. The limitations of the MDGs as a construction requires some evaluation of the concept and design of the MDGs as a framework.

Conceptually, the MDGs present an outcome but does not set out a process to achieve them. In other words, a destination is defined but the journey is missing. The MDGs do not fully consider the diverse positions at which countries are starting from in their developmental pathways. The MDGs are also laid out in terms of aggregates and averages that often conceal distributional outcomes. Its design, characterized by a multiplicity of objectives that span a wide range, has serious limitations as well.

The MDG’s goals are set out in proportions, such as “half the number of people,” and addresses good intentions such as literacy and preservation of biodiversity. However, Nayyar asserted that some indicators are inappropriate or misleading. There is a misplaced emphasis on stepping up the rate of economic growth. Indeed, the formulation of the indicators reveal the ways in which the MDGs have been misunderstood, misused and misappropriated. For example, global norms have been presented as national targets and the dominant economic and social ideology of our times, which is orthodox, have not been questioned or challenged.

Nayyar stressed that more of the same cannot be an option, the Post-2015 framework has to be different. However, it is to be accepted that there will be genuine differences of opinion between countries and constituencies on framing the Post-2015 development framework. In particular, achieving political consensus on the means of implementation will be exceedingly difficult. Developing countries will need voice and influence to focus on equitable growth, aid, and improved governance.

For the MDGs to be substantially changed into its future incarnation, Nayyar presented three points of departure. First, it is imperative that there is structural flexibility at the national level. It is necessary to recognize the possibilities of some interdependence among objectives and some trade-offs between objectives. For this purpose, the new framework should state in its premises that development objectives are a norm rather than a floor or a ceiling. They should also state that development outcomes are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and suggestive rather than definitive.

It must also be explicitly stated that the Post-2015 development framework represents objectives for the world as a whole, which are not a scale to measure progress in every country because national goals must be formulated domestically, with the use of global norms as a point of reference.

Second, structural inequalities must be analyzed in any assessment of outcomes. It is necessary to monitor progress at a disaggregated level or compute statistical averages by introducing some weights that reflect the distribution among people. This is essential because inequalities exist and distributional outcomes matter.

There are two ways in which this can be done. The simplest method would be to focus on the bottom 1/4^th or poorest 40% of the aggregate national population. Spatial inequality can be seen through disaggregated evidence at provincial or regional levels. 

And third, it is imperative that the new framework for 2015 and beyond must incorporate the means rather than simply focus on ends. In other words, something needs to be said not only on outcomes but also on process. However, there must be resistance to the temptation of setting out specifics of policies. Rather, the intention should be to produce an outline through which countries have the freedom to follow their own national development policies.

It is important that the Post-2015 development framework avoids an attempt to produce generalized prescriptions or universal blueprints. Policies and strategies must evolve at a national level as times and circumstances change. However, the framework could enunciate some general propositions that are suggestive rather than definitive or exhaustive. 

Some examples of suggestive and general propositions are the following:

• Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to bring about development. 
• It is necessary to create institutional mechanisms that would transform economic growth into meaningful development by improving the living conditions of people. Public action is an integral part of this process. 
• Employment creation provides the only sustainable means of poverty reduction. 
• Policies should not be prescribed once-and-for-all because there are specificities in time and space. 
• External finance is a complement to but cannot be a substitute for domestic resources. 
• The role of the state remains critical in the process of development.

The Post-2015 development framework must at its outset acknowledge that we live in a world that is significantly different from the world in 2000. The consequences of the global financial and economic crisis has worsened development prospects in many developing and even some developed countries. It is now clear that the developing world is not immune, but rather more resilient, from what happens in the world economy. The looming menace of climate change and all its consequent impacts on economic, social and food security, also persist.

Furthermore, Nayyar highlighted that deprivation is no longer about developing countries alone. There is relative, absolute deprivation in developed countries as well, as witnessed in the profound increase in economic inequalities both between countries and among people. Inequality is increasingly difficult to sustain in democratic politics. The idea of austerity now for prosperity later is something people are not easily willing to accept. Democratic change must be on the horizon, especially with the reality of industrial societies aging and ongoing significant international migration despite draconian immigration laws.

The Post-2015 development framework must also acknowledge a shift in the balance of global economic power in the world that is discernible now in a way that it wasn’t in 2000. However, while the share of developing countries GDP in world global GDP rose to its highest in 2010, the influence and voice of developing countries in the policymaking fora of the international community remains negligible.

Abandon MDG 8 and start over

On Goal 8 of the MDGs, which is the global partnership for development, Nayyar argued that Goal 8 should be abandoned and the Post-2015 should start over in defining and committing to changes in the international financial architecture. Simply put, the international community needs to do better on this unfinished business of the global partnership for development. Its essence should be indeed that of partnership, not patronage, which is the result of an aid-dominated discourse which leaves much to be desired.

Even if all the official development aid had been committed with good intentions, it would not have solved the problem. Evidence and experience suggest that aid is a mixed blessing, often turning out to be an equivalent of the ‘natural resources curse.’ It is clear that for developing countries, rather than an overwhelming focus on external finance, access to medicines, technology and markets is imperative and would serve to reduce some of the asymmetries in development.  

Goal 8 as it currently stands should be abandoned, and three key actions in the international context should be focused on. First, remove the asymmetrical relations within and between rich and poor countries. Instead of more performance criteria for developing countries, there ought to be a more equal partnership. The asymmetries in the development framework should also be removed, in particular by addressing the various protectionist policies of developed countries.

Second, increase the policy space for developing countries that has been encroached on through the international regimes. And third, move toward the logic and spirit of international cooperation and solidarity and away from the history of asymmetrical and unjust policies and systems.

Prioritizing a development-oriented national policy strategy

Nayyar asserted that there is a global momentum toward the role of the state and national development strategies, which is coming from many different sources.

To revive the idea and plan of a national development strategy, macroeconomic policies must be reformulated. It is essential to return to a developmental approach in macroeconomic policies, he said, in the prioritization of short-term countercyclical monetary and fiscal policies with an eye toward long-term development objectives. 

For this, economic growth with human development must become an integral part of the mandate of financial ministries and central banks. Long-term poverty reduction is only possible through such an approach. Education and social consumption in health and public goods must be scaled up. Substantial investments in infrastructure must be made. And exclusion must be addressed, particularly through the widening of social safety nets and government programs. 

However, it is not sufficient to speak about ‘inclusive growth’ as governments often do. Rather, it is necessary to ensure that the process of growth is pro-poor. Employment must be placed at the center-stage in the 2015 process. The critical importance of public action must be stressed, in that the developmental role of the state is critical across the entire spectrum of what needs to be done.

It is imperative that the moral authority of the state is restored. The state has been eroded in the current era of market fundamentalism. Illogical conclusions about the state have been made by using the select examples of inept and corrupt governments. But governments cannot be replaced with markets.

Nayyar emphasized that the external and internal must be viewed in terms of markets and resources. External markets must be a complement not substitute for domestic markets, which are critical for development. We need to remember that domestic markets are at one level constitutive of development because it means that ordinary people have purchasing power. On the other hand, domestic markets are also instrumental because they can drive the process of growth in ways that rely on domestic resources and productive capacity.

In rethinking development, there is a vital need to restore the balance between states and markets, for the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of markets. So much of what needs to be done needs to be done by states. Governments are accountable to people, markets are not. A crash in stock markets is a system failure, but a crash in government has grave consequences.

Martin Khor, executive director of the South Centre, addressed the future of sustainable development and the onset of an intergovernmental process in the UN to formulate sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Khor outlined three immediate follow-up actions to the Rio+20 summit of the UN on sustainable development, which was held in June 2012 in Brazil. The first follow-up action is the establishment of the SDG process. The second is the creation of two groups in the UN that will address the means of implementation (financing of sustainable development) and technology. And the third is the establishment of a High-Level Political Forum for sustainable development. 

The first action, the SDGs, is currently preoccupying UN missions in New York. The establishment of the Open Working Group on the SDGs is now complete. However, there is an important question of what developing countries want out of the SDGs. During the Rio+20 process, European countries had at first come up with the idea of a Green Economy Road Map. However, they did not succeed. Instead, the concept of Sustainable Development Goals was accepted.

Towards the end of the process, European countries proposed six or seven SDGs in order to create something concrete in the summit. Their goals were on the environmental side. Developing countries argued it was too early to adopt a few SDGs. There should be economic and social goals as well, as the idea of sustainable development is to recognize that environmental crises exist alongside economic and social crises, and that in order to address environmental issues, social and economic issues have to be simultaneously addressed. 

The SDGs thus have to be walking on three legs, that of economic, social and environment. These three legs are the cornerstone of the SDGs, and developing countries would not accept the articulation of goals based solely on environmental factors. The task now is to articulate goals in all three pillars. 

In the area of environment, the goals could be selected from issues such as: climate and atmosphere, biodiversity and forests, oceans and seas, toxic chemicals and wastes, sustainable agriculture, water, and energy. 

Khor stressed that the challenge now is to come up with the economic and social goals. Some examples of economic goals for the SDGs are to regulate financial markets to prevent future financial crises, to re-orient the financial system to meet the needs of the real economy, to prevent and properly manage external debt crises, to address the volatility of commodity prices and markets, to achieve adequate and inclusive growth and to have a balanced set of macro-economic policies and goals.

Social goals for the SDGs can include, for example, the reduction of social inequalities and achievement of greater equity between and within countries, full employment and adequate rural livelihoods in the formal and informal sectors, adequate policy space for developing countries to promote social development and a re-orientation of the international intellectual property regime to enable social development in developing countries.

High-Level Political Forum must ensure substance of sustainable development

Khor also addressed the establishment of a High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) which is going to address sustainable development. In adopting the Rio+20 outcome document in the General Assembly it was agreed that the Commission for Social Development (CSD) would be replaced by the HLPF. 

Consequently, the issues of the CSD would be addressed in the HLPF. Khor said that the HLPF must have a strong organisational base and adequate number of days in a year for meetings to cover the sustainable development issues. It must be stronger than the CSD. But some countries seem to want a weak organisation instead. Khor stressed that this would be an unfortunate development, because it will most likely reduce the substantive issues in the CSD to a few roundtables held during the annual General Assembly sessions held in September of each year. It would be tragic for developing countries to have the substance of CSD replaced with panel sessions. 

There may be weaknesses in the CSD, but there is a secretariat, programme of work and 2-3 weeks meetings per year. If this entire establishment of the CSD is closed down and replaced with just a forum, then how is the Rio+20 outcome document going to be implemented, Khor asked.

With regard to the follow-up process for the financing of sustainable development, Khor emphasized that developing countries need to address the issues of technology transfer and development. There are significant hurdles, as developed countries were very reluctant to have any wording on technology transfer during the Rio+20 negotiations.

Khor also highlighted the need for a home for the SDGs, which logically should be the HLPF. In essence, the MDGs never had a home. Although the UNDP and DESA, to some degree, coordinated the functions and processes of the MDGs on the national level, the MDGs never had a formal secretariat.

A secretariat must be established for the HLPF in order to ensure that it will remain strong and influential, and to ensure that it will meet for more than two weeks per year. The Human Rights Council in Geneva meets 250 days per year, with many subsidiary bodies and processes. 

The HLPF for sustainable development should also ideally become an organization of 100 or so professionals working on sustainable development issues. Such an organization would then work alongside implementing bodies such as the United Nations Environment Program and the Food and Agriculture Organization. The HLPF could then also ensure that important economic and social issues that are integrally connected to sustainable development would also have a home. 

However, Khor noted that a key challenge for the HLPF is that it would have to interface with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). If the reform of ECOSOC takes a number of years, as it has done for many years in the past, then during that process of revitalization there might be a vacuum where in the absence of the CSD there may be no operational forum or council for sustainable development.

Bhumika Muchhala is a Senior Researcher with the Third World Network.  

[South Bulletin 72 Article]

At the annual meeting of the South Centre’s Council of Representatives, the Executive Director Martin Khor presented the following report of the Centre’s activities in 2012.

INTRODUCTION

Developing countries faced many challenges in the year 2012. There was a further weakening of the global economy, due to the continuing crisis in the European region and the uncertainties in the US economy due to the possibility of the “fiscal cliff”. Many developing countries experienced a decline in their GDP growth rates.

Multilateralism also seemed to be weakening as the developed countries challenged the hitherto widely accepted principles such as common but differentiated responsibilities, technology transfer and new and additional financial resources. After often acrimonious negotiations, there was an agreed outcome in two important events, UNCTAD XIII and the Rio plus 20 Summit. But the lack of international cooperation was also evident in the WTO (where the Doha Round continues its impasse) and the climate change negotiations.   Nevertheless, the developing countries generally maintained their unity in several negotiating fora, and they successfully implemented the Summit of the Non Aligned Movement in Tehran.

ACTIVITIES

The Centre continued to conduct a broad range of activities in 2012, including research, convening of meetings, negotiating support, participation in international meetings, and publications. The issues covered included global finance and economy, trade, IPR and innovation policies, climate change and sustainable development.

On issues relating to the Global Economy and Development, the South Centre was deeply involved in the UNCTAD XIII session in Doha in April, as well as the preparatory process. UNCTAD XIII was a turning point for UNCTAD and multilateral relations. The G77 and China fought a tough battle to have the UNCTAD mandate reaffirmed, and to enable UNCTAD to continue its work on several areas such as the global economic crisis, finance, debt and macroeconomic policy. The G77 and China eventually succeeded in having the UNCTAD mandate reaffirmed. The Centre supported developing countries and the G77 and China in this effort; as well as an initiative by former senior officials of UNCTAD in highlighting their views in support of UNCTAD. The Centre was invited to be a keynote speaker in the G77 and China Ministerial meeting at the start of the UNCTAD XIII session.

On the global economic crisis, the Centre played a significant role in supporting G77 and China and several developing countries in preparing for the UN General Assembly high level conference on the global economy and finance, held in May. The Centre’s chief economist held two meetings, and the ED held one other meeting, with the developing countries to brief the developing countries on the state of the global economy and the impact on developing countries. The Chief Economist was a key speaker at the UNGA conference. The Centre also advised the developing countries on re-activating the UNGA ad hoc working group on the financial crisis. The Centre published a new book, “Financial Crisis and Global Imbalances, a Development Perspective”, which put together various research papers written by the Chief Economist on the global financial crisis and the effects on developing countries. A new research paper, “The Staggering Rise of the South?” was published; it questioned the theory of de-coupling and the view that the developing countries were about to overtake the North in future performance. 

The Centre also co organized a three-day NGO strategy meeting on finance and development in May, with about 50 NGOs and resource persons attending. The Centre also took an active role in organizing two sessions at the conference of the Turkish Economic Association held in Izmir in October, which was attended by several senior policy makers and academics.

The Rio+20 summit (20-22 June) was held in Brazil, and there were four preparatory meetings (three in New York in end-March, end-April and end-May; and the fourth in Rio on 13-19 June). South Centre was active in monitoring the negotiations and supporting the G77 and China and many developing countries, by holding several meetings, and preparing papers and proposals on various topics. The G77 and China eventually succeeded in obtaining most of their negotiating objectives, especially in reaffirming the Rio principles and the common but differentiated responsibility, in the face of resistance by developed countries. They also maintained policy space on the green economy and sustainable development goals, while its proposal for a new high-level political forum on sustainable development was accepted. However there was a weak outcome on finance and technology. The overall level of ambition for urgent action in the face of global ecological and economic crises was low in the final outcome. An important achievement however was that there are important follow up processes that could lead to longer-term gains. Besides its support and advocacy role, the Centre was also active in (1) holding an official side event on Rio+20; (2) co-organising a seminar on the world economy and Brazil with MINDS and BNDES; (3) three South Centre personnel taking part in three out of the seven official Sustainable development Dialogues; and (4) meeting political leaders. The Centre intends to be active in the follow up process.

The UNFCCC climate negotiations resumed after the Durban decision to initiate negotiations for a new Durban Platform (either a legally binding regime or an agreed outcome with legal force). The Centre organized a three-day brainstorming and strategy meeting in March in Geneva and then hosted a series of meetings in Bonn for some like-minded developing counties to prepare the case for an equity based approach to the Durban Platform. The cooperation and coordination of such a group developed significantly in May at the Bonn session. The Centre’s ED also spoke at an important UNFCCC official climate equity workshop in Bonn.   The Centre was also active in the UNFCCC session in Bangkok in August/September and then assisted in the meeting of a like-minded group held in Beijing in October. The Centre played an active role in the Conference of Parties (COP18) in Doha in November/December by providing resource persons and organizing or taking part in several meetings, including a meeting of Ministers of developing countries organized by Saudi Arabia, and its own side event.

Besides the UNFCCC, the Centre has also been following the progress in the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with several experts from the Centre reviewing the first-order draft of the mitigation working group. The Centre also co-organized a meeting of expert reviewers and lead authors of the IPCC working group to review the first-order draft.

The Innovation and Access to Knowledge and IP section was also active in supporting developing countries in negotiations at WIPO, WHO, WTO, FAO and UNFCCC. South Centre personnel took part in activities and meetings not only in these institutions but in a wide range of academic, scholarly and NGO meetings. The issues included IP and development in general, access to health technologies, access to knowledge, traditional knowledge, disclosure and benefit sharing in genetic resources, and national IP and development strategy. The Centre continued to hold meetings to support developing country delegations to prepare for meetings at the WIPO, in several meetings relating to a range of topics – the development agenda at WIPO, copyright, patents and genetic resources/traditional knowledge. The Centre continued to support the Development Agenda Group of developing countries especially at the WIPO negotiations. The Centre co-organised a meeting of Ambassadors and high-level officials from capitals of the Development Agenda Group during the WIPO General Assemblies. 

The Centre was also active in health and development issues. It also took a leading role in the initiation and development of the idea of a global R+D treaty for medicines and other health products that are especially required by developing countries. The Centre’s IP and technology advisor played a leading role in the WHO expert group on R+D to develop this idea, and he and the Centre’s health advisor also played significant roles in the discussions at the World Health Assembly, leading to a resolution that takes this concept a step forward.   The Centre also began to participate in the meetings of the protocol on tobacco control linked to the WHO. The Centre was also invited by WHO to take part in its advisory group on production of generic medicines in developing countries. In January, the ED was invited to be a keynote speaker at the 50^th anniversary congress of the Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association in which he urged the Indian generic companies to continue to supply quality generic medicines for the developing countries. 

On trade and development, the South Centre focused much of its resources in assisting the African Union as well as specific African countries and groupings, such as the east African Community, in developing alternatives to the EU’s model of EPA for the ACP countries, as well as to counter argue against the new EC policy in removing trade preferences (including GSP and GSP-plus) for several non-LDCs. The Chairman also made a keynote speech at an important EAC meeting in Arusha while Board member Charles Soludo published extensively on the issue in African publications. The Centre, together with the AU commission and ACP secretariat have jointly developed an alternative trade preference scheme for Africa. The Centre is attempting new ways of addressing the issue in the months ahead.  

The Centre has also been monitoring developments at the WTO, including the emergence of new issues such as “global value chains” and the continuing attempts by developed countries to reintroduce “new issues” while avoiding old commitments especially in agriculture. The Centre has been providing support to the Friends of Development group in WTO. The Centre co-organised a session on the future of the trading system at the WTO Public Forum. Towards the end of the year, the Centre supported the efforts of the LDC Group to submit proposals for the extension of the exemption period for LDCs in relation to the TRIPS Agreement. The Centre also participated and spoke at the LDC Group retreat organized in November. 

The media and publications work of the Centre expanded in 2012. Regular monthly issues of the South Bulletin were produced, with focus on various issues, including the state of the global economy and developing countries’ economies; two issues on UNCTAD XIII and the Rio Plus 20 negotiations; the NAM summit; on the EPAs and the impasse at the WTO negotiations; and the emerging crisis of investment agreements. The translation unit continued its work of translating South Bulletin and several research papers and other documents into French and Spanish. The Centre also published three books, on the global economic situation; a handbook on pharmaceutical patents; and a bibliography on articles and books on access to medicines. The Centre also published several Research Papers, briefing papers and analytical notes. The Centre also expanded its publication of SouthNews and SouthViews and is in the process of revamping its website.

The administration section continued with its work to support staffing, financing and other activities.

Two Board meetings were held in 2012.  The first meeting was held in Geneva in February, with associated activities being a reception was held for diplomats, and a two-day conference on the State of the Global Economy and Reflections on International Negotiations. The second meeting was also held in Geneva, with a half-day seminar on developments in sustainable development, particularly the Rio plus 20 summit. The year 2012 marked the passing away of Board member Angela Cropper as well as the resignation due to health reasons of Leticia Ramos Shahani of the Philippines.    

The annual meeting of the Council of Representatives was held in January in Geneva. It elected H.E. Ambassador Abdul Minty of South Africa as the Convenor of the Council for a three year term. It also welcomed a new member state, Ecuador, and appointed a new Board member, Youba Sokona.   

CONCLUSION

Looking forward to 2013, the Centre intends to expand its activities of research, analysis, convening of meetings and cooperating with countries as well as with organisations of the South.

The year ahead is also very challenging, with many important international processes taking place, including the start of the UN’s post 2015 Development Agenda, the WTO negotiations towards the Ministerial Conference in Bali at the end of the year, the FTAs and EPAs, the climate negotiations at UNFCCC, the follow up to the Rio Plus 20 Summit including the establishment of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the several meetings at WIPO and WHO. The South Centre hopes to participate actively in these and other processes.

To enable the expansion of the Centre's activities in 2013 and beyond, it is necessary for the Centre to obtain additional financial and human resources. We hope that the member states of the Centre will increase their contributions, through the annual contributions and through special contributions beyond the annual contributions that can be made to the overall operating funds or to more specific projects.

The Centre looks forward to working with the member states, the developing countries in general, and with civil society in the year ahead.